Islamabad vs RAB NAWAZ KHAN And 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning land resumption proceedings under Martial Law Regulation 115. The declarant sought correction of Khasra Girdawari entries, which the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, remanded to the Collector for resolution. Subsequently, the Federal Land Commission set aside this remand order. The core legal question was whether the Federal Land Commission possessed the competence to override the Board of Revenue's order and whether the Commission's decision-making process adhered to procedural fairness. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Land Commission lacked the authority to set aside the Board of Revenue's order concerning land revenue classification. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Commission’s order was passed in violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice, as it was issued in suo motu proceedings without affording the declarant an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the High Court correctly declared the Commission's order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the Federal Land Commission have the authority to set aside an order passed by the Board of Revenue regarding the correction of Khasra Girdawari?
- Is an order passed by a quasi-judicial body without providing the affected party an opportunity of being heard legally sustainable?
- Are matters concerning the correction of Khasra Girdawari and land classification within the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Martial Law Regulation 115
- Land Revenue Act, 1967
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises out of judgment dated 17-10- 1994 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No.3515 of 1977 filed by Rab Nawaz Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, against the order dated 21-10- 1976 of the Federal Land Commission, was allowed.
2. Rab Nawaz Khan was a declarant under M.L.R.
115. On 27-y9-1972 the declaration filed by him in respect of his holding was scrutinized by the Land Commission authorities and excess area than his entitlement equivalent to 5004 P.I. Units was resumed. The land so resumed was allotted under para. 18 of M.L.R., 115 to the tenants including one Muhammad Yasin. The declarant on learning that in the Khasra Girdawari pertaining to the land in dispute entries were interpolated he applied to the Collector for correction thereof. The application was rejected by the Collector vide his order dated 27-7-1974, and that order was maintained in appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division Multan.
3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the declarant filed a revision petition before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, who vide his order dated 16-3-1976 allowed the same and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. Muhammad Yasin allottee of a portion of the resumed land filed an application before the Federal Land Commission and the latter vide order dated 21-10-1976 declared the proceedings pending before the District Collector pursuant to the remand order issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, ineffective.
4. The declarant then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, against the aforementioned order of the Federal Land Commission, which was allowed vide impugned judgment, referred to above. The main ground which prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court for setting aside the order of the Land Commission, was that the order passed by the Senior Member Board of Revenue could not be set aside by a functionary of the Land Commission in the exercise of his jurisdiction under M.L.R. 115 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the declarant on the final date of hearing.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the declaration filed by Rab Nawaz Khan deceased in respect of his holding was scrutinized by the Land Commission Authorities, and the excess area than his entitlement was determined and resumed In 1972 the resumed land was allotted to the tenants and the matter had since then concluded once for all and could not have been got re-opened by the declarant in the garb of the correction of the Khasra Girdawari or classification of the land.
6. Mr. Fazal-i-Hussain Advocate, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the declarant had applied for correction of the entries in the relevant Khasra Girdawari immediately after the resumption of the land. He further contended that neither the declarant nor his counsel was heard on the date fixed for final hearing of the case, as such he was condemned unheard.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on the file.
Undoubtedly Rab Nawaz Khan declarant had applied for correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari for correct classification of the land in question, which could only be decided by the Revenue Authorities in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in them under the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
The learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 16-3-1976, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, remanded the case to the District Collector for resolution of the issue pertaining to the correction of Khasra Girdawari and the classification of the land based thereon.
The functionaries of the Federal Land Commission were, therefore, not competent to set aside the aforementioned order. The perusal of the record shows that neither the declarant nor his counsel was heard when the Member, Federal Land Commission had passed the order dated 21-10-1976 in suo motu proceedings initiated at the instance of Muhammad Yasin allottee. The order passed by him was in violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice and was rightly declared by the High Court to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
In our view the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court suffers from no legal infirmity so as to call for interference through this petition. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.